[AGL] Ewie website

[blacky at cbn.net.id]

I would appreciate having the URL for Ewie's website. Tried to google it
up but got nowhere.

And one peeve: doesn't anybody have the energy to take the time to fill in
a new, and appropriate, subject in the proper space when launching off on
a new topic?

Jesus Joseph and Mary people go all over the place with the "Reply" to any
given topic. Come on folks (old folks), it's only a few keystrokes more.
And it will be appreciated by your potential readers (or deleters).

Whew.

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB



> Mike and John,

> Yeah, you city cats who live in high rises in the middle of large colonies

> beneath the dark brown cloud, seeing so many faces every day, idolizing a

> photographer of, well, geeks...It figures, shoot what you see. Not that I

> don't appreciate the late Ms. Arbus, but a little goes a long way.

>

> While I'm not into landscape art (bluebonnets in Texas, desert scapes in

> NM,

> etc), photos of non-human natural subjects are my preference. I once

> watched

> a UT grad and onetime fellow student named Jim Bones photograph plants for

> inclusion in the Seeds of Change catalogue, not easy but beautiful when

> done

> well. BTW, that catalogue has superb photography. If you want to study

> photos of people I recommend the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition,

> currently available on the web with Brazilian models included...

>

> Ewie, a friend for 50 years and a genuine Renaissance man, shoots

> everything, with a 4X5, and does a dammed good job of it. He probably

> prints

> more in a week (when he isn't globetrotting) than you guys do in a year.

> Check out his website. Not to say that he is all knowing and perfect (he

> doesn't spell well) but he does spend lots of time outdoors where the

> faces

> are few and the subjects and the light change with the seasons.

> G

>

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: "Jon Ford" <jonmfordster at hotmail.com>

> To: <austin-ghetto-list at pairlist.net>

> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 9:17 AM

> Subject: Re: [AGL] Mike Attack

>

>

>> <IMHO, a photographer should be allowed to shoot one sunset a

>> year.

>>

>> my taste in photography is more oriented towards Diane Arbus.>

>>

>> Mike-- I couldn't agree more.

>>

>> Jon

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> >From: "Michael Eisenstadt" <michaele at ando.pair.com>

>> >Reply-To: survivors' reminiscences about Austin Ghetto Daze in the

>> >60s<austin-ghetto-list at pairlist.net>

>> >To: "survivors' reminiscences about Austin Ghetto Daze in the

>> >60s"<austin-ghetto-list at pairlist.net>

>> >Subject: Re: [AGL] Mike Attack

>> >Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 09:01:59 -0600

>> >

>> >i hadnt seen the bottom part of Ewie's supercilious email.

>> >

>> >Ewie, you do nature photography, right?

>> >

>> >IMHO, a photographer should be allowed to shoot one sunset a

>> >year.

>> >

>> >my taste in photography is more oriented towards Diane Arbus.

>> >

>> >like Hans Otto a professional photographer on our list, having

>> >learnt how photography is/has been done starting with t-shirts

>> >ruined by doing chemical processing, i dont need your introductory

>> >instruction on color casts and what it doesnt say on the little yellow

>> >boxes. and your advice to get my monitor adjusted because i seem

>> >to be a self-admitted computer something. this from a guy who cant

>> >do multiplication by threes.

>> >

>> >weren't you the guy with the self-nullifying philosophy mantra a

>> >few threads back on this list?

>> >

>> >i met you briefly at a Dave Moriaty party. you didnt want to talk

>> >about your heroic sailboat adventure that landed you in Hawaii

>> >in one piece. you are married to a chinese woman and we have

>> >met your ex-wife who does artistry hereabouts involving birdcages.

>> >

>> >well howdy there pardner. Dave Martinez told me he used to

>> >room with you in Austin

>> >

>> >on a not unrelated subject, when is the next reunion? where

>> >everyone, even me, is invited to.

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >----- Original Message -----

>> >From: "Bill Irwin" <billi at aloha.net>

>> >To: "survivors' reminiscences about Austin Ghetto Daze in the 60s"

>> ><austin-ghetto-list at pairlist.net>

>> >Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 4:31 PM

>> >Subject: Re: [AGL] Mike Attack

>> >

>> >

>> > > Mike, maybe you don't understand this resolution thing, it is

> confusing.

>> > > The D5 does not produce a 39meg file, if it did they would be

>> >advertising

>> > > the fact all over the place.

>> > > Here is a quote from the Cannon site:

>> > > File size:

>> > > (1) Large/Fine: Approx. 4.6MB (4,368 x 2,912) (2) Large/Normal 2.3MB

>> > > (4,368

>> > > x 2,912) (3) Medium/Fine: Approx. 2.7MB (3,168 x 2,112) (4)

>> >Medium/Normal:

>> > > Approx. 1.4MB (3,168 x 2,112) (5) Small/Fine: Approx. 2.0MB (2,496 x

>> > > 1,664)

>> > > (6) Small/Normal: Approx. 1.0MB (2,496 x 1,664) (7) RAW: Approx.

> 12.9MB

>> > > (4,368 x 2,912)

>> > >

>> > > If it could produce a 39meg file they would certainly say so.

>> > >

>> > > I didn't see Polidori's photos but if they all look a little blue to

> you

>> > > that may be a sign that you monitor is not color corrected.  Since

>> you

>> > > seem

>> > > to be a computer buff I guess you know that monitors do not always

>> >display

>> > > the correct colors and for critical work they need to be calibrated

>> so

>> > > things have the correct color.   I have been doing this stuff for a

> few

>> > > years and it is true if a scene is illuminated just by sky light

>> only

>> >such

>> > > as in the shade,  can have a bit of a blue cast.  But if you have a

> blue

>> > > sky

>> > > that means you have the sun out and scenes in sunlight never have

>> this

>> > > blue

>> > > cast - the engineers at Kodak have figured this out and make their

> film

>> >to

>> > > show pretty damn good colors.

>> > >

>> > > Better get your monitor calibrated if you want to peruse a career as

>> >photo

>> > > critic.

>> > > Aloha

>> > >

>> > > ----- Original Message -----

>> > > From: "Michael Eisenstadt" <mike.eisenstadt at gmail.com>

>> > >

>> > >

>> > >> Ewie,

>> > >>

>> > >> You've got the numbers right and wrong at the same time.

>> > >>

>> > >> The Canon D5's sensor is 35.8 x 23.9 mm, the same size

>> > >> as a frame of 35mm film. It has 12.7 million pixels, its

>> > >> maxiumum resolution being 4368 x 2912. Multiply that

>> > >> and you get 12.7 million. Then multiply 3x for the 3 primary

>> > >> colors and the raw file size is 39Megs, the same in effect as

>> > >> the 40Megs you mention.

>> > >>

>> > >> Same as your camera and scanner without the muss and bother of

>> > >> film and chemical darkrooms.

>> > >>

>> > >> As for speed, this camera shoots 3 frames a second in

>> > >> burst mode. The specs do not supply shutter lag time

>> > >> if any. Body is made of magnesium, the lightest metal.

>> > >>

>> > >> $2700 is Amazon's discount price for the camera new.

>> > >> It will take some years before a used one will come

>> > >> close enough to my money comfort zone, maybe never.

>> > >> Meanwhile, i will use film in my Canon cameras,

>> > >> process the slides, chose the keepers, scan them

>> > >> for $1.90 a frame, correct the scan's levels in Photoshop,

>> > >> and print on 8x11 inch glossy fake photography paper.

>> > >>

>> > >> Meanwhile, looking at Polidori's indoor shots of ruined

>> > >> interiors in post-Katrina New Orleans, it is hard to overlook

>> > >> the blue color casts of his incompetence. He was shooting

>> > >> without a flash indoors on a sunny day. Objects in the

>> > >> shadow on a sunny day are of course illuminated by

>> > >> the blue light of the sky. So photos not shot in direct

>> > >> light, sunlight or flash, are caca: Aunt Tilly under a tree when

>> > >> she comes back from the drugstore is colored blue. They

>> > >> don't tell you about that on the little yellow boxes. Might

>> > >> reduce sales.

>> > >>

>> > >> Mike

>> > >>

>> > >>

>> > >> > Well, Mike the Cannon D5 is a nice camera and I would like

>> somebody

>> >to

>> > >> > give

>> > >> > me one but it is 3 times the price of a Cannon Elan7 and scanner

>> >combo.

>> > >> > Another problem for me with expensive cameras is the problem of

> them

>> > >> > getting

>> > >> > stolen, I had one stolen in China but it was only a $500 loss,

> can't

>> > >> > afford

>> > >> > the $3000 loss.  A 35mm slide scanned at 4000 DPI comes to about

>> 40

>> > >> > meg,

>> > >> > the

>> > >> > Cannon D5 only 12.8 meg.  I don't know if the Cannon has this

> problem

>> > > but

>> > >> > many digital cameras have a significant lag between pushing the

>> >shutter

>> > >> > and

>> > >> > the actual scan making them a little difficult for capturing fast

>> > > action.

>> > >> > Film cameras only 1/60 sec. or less.

>> > >> >

>> > >> > Now if you are a real purest you can get the Hasselblad for only

>> > >> > $31,995

>> > >> > but

>> > >> > sill you will not get the resolution of a scanned 35mm slide.

>> But

> if

>> > > you

>> > >> > are a real resolution fanatic get the 4x5 camera - the only way

>> to

>> >go!!

>> > >> > You

>> > >> > can buy them on Ebay for around $500.

>> > >> >

>> > >> > The processing of color film is a bit of a problem but you can do

> it

>> > >> > yourself or send it out.  Doing it yourself and sending it out

>> cost

>> > > about

>> > >> > the same price.  Only problem is not instant gratification.  Some

> art

>> > >> > forms

>> > >> > require a little work.

>> > >> >

>> > >

>> > >

>> >

>>

>> _________________________________________________________________

>> Find what you need at prices you'll love. Compare products and save at

> MSN®

>> Shopping.

>>

> http://shopping.msn.com/default/shp/?ptnrid=37,ptnrdata=24102&tcode=T001MSN2

> 0A0701

>>

>>

>